Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

I ran into this purely by accident, I haven't read them myself but I wonder if Talbott/Thornhill had ever glance over some of this theory?

Is this work more politically motivated rather than factually evidenced? Under Stalin there was a lot of pressure for Russian academics to reject western theories and to create home-grown Russian ones. Often the home-grown theory was chosen because it could conveniently be associated with the right class of Russian and be used to attack the established bourgeois accademics.

Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism. Mendelian genetics was rejected by Russian science and a man called Lysenko was pushed high in academia to promote the alternative, which really was a load of nonsense.

Hi Willendure,In my opinion it must be a deliberate Orwellian tactic.. these guys are too smart academically to actually believe this stuff...

the quotes in the front of the book, quoted from Orwell's '1984'

the clear description of newspeak-like, deliberate forgery, 'must be a global deliberate effort'...

Zinoviev's qualifications: Professor of the Moscow State University, logician, ***sociologist...

The number of supporting professors and academics in the prologue to Fomenko's book, hundreds....attached to State Universities, Russian Academy of Science, academicians, members of academies, smart people, etc...the common denominator could possibly be of course Nationalism, links to the Communist Party, communist idealogy, propaganda?.... it looks like the material and methods of Fomenko, Morazov and aquaintances are described exactly in Orwell's novel - ominous stuff.... we see it here all the time, 'dumbing down' of the media, it's about mind control, thoughtpolice....

"Who controls the past controls the future Who controls the present controls the past"

The fun thing about watching plates spinning is watching to see how many plates he can keep spinning, before they all come crashing down. It's fun, entertaining, but gets expensive after a while. After all, who's going to clean up all those broken plates.

Then sketch1946 clearly started getting confused about Fomenko using actual eclipses to date the Peloponnesian war, or at least I think that's what he means. From all the spinning plates he quoted from the internet I wasn't sure, so I had to search on Book One for "Thucydides" and that's when I got a glimmer of what he was trying to say. Think about it, out of that entire confused post, only by searching Book One for "Thucydides" was I able to find something that he said that made sense. One word out of an entire post! Now that is plate spinning at its best.

If people actually want to read where Fomenko talks about "Thucydides" and the dating for the Peloponnesian war using actual eclipses, go to page 93 of Book One on Google Books, or page 133 of the pdf. That is Chapter 2, Astronomical Datings, where Fomenko goes into beautiful detail about dating events by actual eclipses. It is fascinating to read.

Between Grey Cloud constantly doing the "Argument Clinic" from Monty Python's The Flying Circus, and sketch1946 spinning plates, no wonder the view count on this thread is so high. You just have to love the shear entertainment value of these guys.

Fomenko. Book 1, page 98 (of the book):'Thucydides is the only source that we have in what concerns the Peloponessian War'.Try: Aristophanes, Doidorus Siculus, Xenophon, Plutarch.

I'm not going to type out all this so:His:1) Thucydides . . . So did the authors of the Rig Veda, so did Plato, so did hundreds of other ancient writers. Read their works and judge for yourself.2) The phrase . . Ditto3) One sees . . .That's because that is what he said he was going to do at the beginning of the book. There's nothing surprised in an ancient author setting out his stall in a logical and coherent manner.4) The author . . Nothing unusual about that in ancient writings.

'We are being convinced that this work is a creation of the V century B.C. when writing materials had been scarce and expensive - the Mesopotamians used styluses to scribble on clay, the Greeks aren't familiar with paper yet, and write on pieces of tree bark or use sticks for writing on wax-covered plaques'.What evidence does he have that writing materials had been scarce? The literary output from Athens alone was prodigious. Sure, it was expensive but it was in the middle-ages too. Mediaeval monks frequently scraped and re-used vellum for instance. The irony here being that many pieces of ancient writing have been recovered from the vellum by modern scientific techniques (x-rays for example). The Mesopotamians did not 'scribble' they wrote. Babylonian astronomical written on clay tablets is still used by modern astronomers. The 'books' in the 'Peloponessian War' are in fact scrolls of papyrus paper. In other words, to write out Thucydides' PW would take 8 standard length scrolls. Wax-covered plaques were uswed for temporary recording in lots of places. School-kids were still using them in Victorian Britain.

At this point I've lost the will to live. The Ginzel book Fomenko cites is from 1899. The eclipses can be checked with astronomical software.

If I have the least bit of knowledge I will follow the great Way alone and fear nothing but being sidetracked. The great Way is simple but people delight in complexity.Tao Te Ching, 53.

They were mostly motivated by a sincere desire to help someone who is being deceived.When confronted by claims in the media, in life generally, there are people who seek truth, and sadly some who tell lies, and a third group who are deceived.

People who tell lies do it for different motives, some for money, some for fame, some to please a peer group... they know they are telling lies, and are a despicable blot on society. I genuinely hope you are not one of them.

People who are deceived believe the people who tell lies, or they believe and take as truth things which are theories, things claimed by people who claim theory as truth. Lots of people in this category.

Another group are the smokers, the romantics who believe things because they want to, or things that are wildly improbable... magic, astrology, witchcraft, fairies, UFO's, things dreamed, or unseen or unproven... some would argue there's a whole bunch of modern scientists in this group

Because I don't believe everything I read, I'm quite OK with reading arguments about history or science, there are many historians, and many theories about science, science just means knowledge, But for some science becomes a religion, where people advocate on one side or another of a particular author, in this case Fomenko.

I'll try to speak clearly and not use too big words.

For a start, I might as well ask:1st question do you Allynh have any commercial interests in the sale of Fomenko's books?

2nd question, have you read them yourself?

3rd question, do you understand what Fomenko claims?

4th question, have you read any ancient history?

5th question, do you know much about geography or chronology?

6th question, have you read Velikovsky?

7th question, have you read about communism, propaganda, brainwashing?

When people are favourably impressed by Fomenko, I've not made any personal ad hominem attacks.(ad hominem means an attack at the *person and not the *subject of a debate, discussion or argument)

I've avoided poking the finger at you or anyone else personally about things like "What are you smoking?"You seem surprised at my mention of Orwell and suggest I've been smoking...

if you search Fomenko's Chron1 book, the very first item in his book is a quote from Orwell, 'Orwell' is the sixteenth word in his book... don't take my word for it, search for it, you can also get information about George Orwell onlinehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four"The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party, who works for the Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue in Newspeak), which is responsible for propaganda and ***historical revisionism. His job is to rewrite past newspaper articles, so that the historical record always supports the party line."If you are really interested in what Fomenko's motives might have been to write historical revisionist material.. take the time to download a copy of Orwell's book, you might then understand why I noticed this quote immediately right at the beginning of Fomenko's Chron1you can see two interesting things straight away... historical revisionism, and 'party line' ever heard these terms?

I was trying to persuade you yourself, you particularly, to look at reasons to doubt Fomenko's claims.Because I was concerned you might be in the process of being taken in by a charlatan, a fool, a madman, or a liar, or a manipulating deceiver. I dont have any doubt at all that Fomenko's claims about a global historical conspiracy are either the result of delusion, deliberate deception, or part of some sort of communist plot, the reasons are unknown to me... but the vast scale of his theory is just incredible, ie not able to be believed, his methods are not even logical, statistics to prove that someone is someone else...

I read in Fomenko's first book, page 69 of the pdf, or page 30 of the book, where Fomenko speculates that the Greek Apollonius could really be Polish, because the Greek word 'Apollonius' and the imagined Latin word 'Polonius' are similar in appearance.. I don't believe 'Polonius' is even Latin, (or Russian), for a person from Poland... this is in relation to Fomenko showing some unfamiliarity with etymology or the derivation of words...

the logic is as bizarre as speculating that Apollonius might really be Paul McCartney, since Paul and Apollonius share the stem sounds 'p' and 'l', ie they sort of sound the same, so could Apollonius really belong in the XX century?

If you search Fomenko's first book, you will find Apollonius, but no mention of Shakespeare, this is obviously a deliberate historical fraud, and the Greek Apollonius should be moved to the sixteenth century to England where he belongs...

In Shakespeare's Macbeth, there is a character called Polonius, if I was Fomenko, I could speculate, could the Greek Apollonius be really an Englishman and living in the sixteenth century?

Fomenko's chronology is claiming thousands and thousands of historical events are a deliberate fraud.Yet his own works seem to be an even bigger fraud. I dont know if Fomenko is deceived, deluded, or telling lies deliberately, or genuinely believes what he has written, he praises Morazov, but says Morazov didn't go far enough, since Morazov felt the conventional 'Scaligerian' chronology was correct from the fifth or sixth century AD forwards...

Scientists can calculate eclipses quite accurately assuming conditions in the past or in the future are not changing. Assuming the relative motion of the moon to the earth is the same today as in the past, it's possible to calculate when a historical event happened.

Ancient people described eclipses, in the context of other events, so historians and scientists can work together to decide when an eclipse happened. if it was in the middle of a fight between one mob and another, or in the 5th year of so-and-so's reign, eclipses can be used to serve as markers on a historical timeline, a point in time to synchronise chronologies.

Fomenko used the eclipses reported by Thucydides to claim that because the stars were visible in an eclipse described by Thucydides that actually happened in 430 BC, and scientists calculated recently that the eclipse was not a full eclipse, and so therefore people in 430 BC could not possibly have seen stars on this particular eclipse viewed from Athens where Thucydides was assumed to be, when Thucydides described the event, the sun would still be fairly bright, and so the stars would not be visible... ie Thucydides was not accurate, and added stars when none were visible in this particular eclipse, or the event was really at a different time, or most likely Thucydides was in Thrace where he had connections....

so Fomenko used a computer program to find another possible full eclipse at the location of Athens, but ***chose between ***two other eclipses that occurred in the same place but at a much later time, ie there was a full eclipse at Athens in the twelfth and another full eclipse in the thirteenth century, so Fomenko decided that he was right, the rest of the world was wrong, and the eclipse and all the Greek and Roman and other history was a Jesuit conspiracy...

The question of this thesis is why such accounts of the past are written and, more importantly, read in postCommunist Russia.I conclude that Fomenko’s version of the past is popular because he finds inhistory a simple and usable answer to the question of who the Russians are. Fomenkotaps into existing Russian notions of identity, specifically the widespread belief in thepositive qualities of empire and the special mission of Russia. He has drawn uponprevious attempts to establish a Russian identity, ranging from Slavophilism throughStalinism to Eurasianism. Fomenko’s account of the past speaks to the Russian present,which, in the absence of Ukraine and Belarus, is much more firmly placed at the centre ofthe Eurasian land-mass than it was under the Tsars or Communists. While fantastic,Fomenko’s pseudo-history strikes many Russian readers as no less legitimate than the liesand distortions peddled not just by Communist propagandists but also by tsarist historiansand church chroniclers.

If I have the least bit of knowledge I will follow the great Way alone and fear nothing but being sidetracked. The great Way is simple but people delight in complexity.Tao Te Ching, 53.

I tracked down a copy and just finished reading it. It's about his personal journey reading Fomenko and the other people through history who have challenged the consensus view of history. It is a very nice account of what Fomenko found. I need to read it many more times as I work through Fomenko again, hopefully taking better notes this time around. HA!

To sketch1946:

I suspect that the only question you asked that matters is:

- Have I read Velikovsky? Yes, I have.

His books are available from Amazon in beautiful trade paperbacks. Nice big letters on white paper. They are so much easier to read than my old mass-market editions. The foxing on the pages has gotten worse over the years.

Now, before you offer to derail the thread further by offering to discuss Velikovsky, I'd have to say, "No, thanks."

Whenever I want to read Velikovsky I need only pull out the books, and take my time. That is much easier than trying to decipher your posts as you twist and spin your way through what you might "think" Velikovsky said. But, thanks anyway....

To Grey Cloud:

Awesome Phd paper. You keep finding the best links. From the sample you found I definitely want to read what he's written, though it may take me a while, 272 pages!. HA!

The link you have is to a sample of the paper. You can find the actual link to the paper at:

allynh wrote:I suspect that the only question you asked that matters is:

- Have I read Velikovsky? Yes, I have.

Good, if you understand the chronological criticisms made by Velikovsky, you can see how wildly different Fomenko's chronology is... and explain to me why Fomenko has it right and V is wrong?

I've tried these basic arguments and more:1. The vast and unbelievable scale, intricacy, and impossibility for any group to forge the amount of historical information for just simply the years between 1000 BC to 1000 AD2. The point that history is not only documents, but pottery, archaeology, coins, architecture etc3. The large numbers of eclipse sightings reported in ancient literature, you can't invalidate history by looking at the observations of a single ancient writer Thucydides.4. The undersea evidence of buried cities that correspond to geological strata ie tsunami and volcanic history of the Mediterranean correlates to ancient documents.5. The known history of Soviet-era historical revisionism, especially anti-religious propaganda in Communist states.6. The direct links within Fomenko's book to George Orwell, and the introductions that describe perfectly how a campaign of pseudo history has to be undertaken on a global scale.

As Grey Cloud points out, I'm still waiting for a personal statement from yourself that might persuade me to take Fomenko seriously. If there is some valid reason, and I don't mean his etymological methods, which I've already demonstrated have no basis in sound logic, ie are impossibly ambiguous, how could I know that Apollonius was not Shakespeare's Polonius, Nicolas Copernicus the Pole, or Paul McCartney? This reasoning is just not valid, (to be most kind...)A[p]o[ll]onius is not equal to [P]o[l]onius is not equal to Nicolas Copernicus the [P]o[l]e is not equal to [P]au[l] McCartneyif you're familiar with maths or computer programing, there is a distinction between 'equal to' and 'identity'

With respect, your opinion about questions that matter must be a personal one, but I think that others who might be following this thread might think the other questions were important too...Do you only answer questions that matter to you? or can you see that people might want to investigate Fomenko without necessarily buying all seven books...

sketch1946 wrote:1st question do you Allynh have any commercial interests in the sale of Fomenko's books?

You have mentioned your apparent enthusiasm for the thread views.. ...Will you make money out of book sales? Does this question matter to you? Don't you realise it matters to your credibility as other people see you?

allynh wrote:BTW, the thread views are over 6000. Wow!

allynh wrote:Now, before you offer to derail the thread further by offering to discuss Velikovsky, I'd have to say, "No, thanks."

Second time you've implied I'm trying to 'derail' the thread, how can you suggest I can simultaneously pump up the thread by 'spinning plates' as you put it, and then be 'derailing' the thread by discussing fake chronology?

Velikovsky is fundamentally relevant to Fomenko's chronology claims, Fomenko includes Velikovsky as a founding father of his 'new chronology', I personally think V would be highly insulted, can you tell us why I should accept an assertion that Morozov is 'more detailed'? ... detailed in what? We already know the Soviets put Morozov in jail for 25 years, that he wrote a pseudo-history of Christ, but with a ***different chronology to Fomenko's, that Fomenko thought Morozov was ***wrong

I'm sincerely asking here, save me the time to find and download Chron7, or do I have to buy it?is this what the thread is about, am I obliged to buy Fomenko's other five books to fully evaluate his chronology and decide how fake, or how true it is, enlighten me, please..

Maybe you tell us, and everyone else here, from your understanding of the appendix to Chron7 with details about Morozov, will any reasonable person find rational arguments there, or will it be more assertions?

In other words, can you summarise for me, and everyone else interested in finding out whether Fomenko's chronology is "False Chronology" or not, are you personally satisfied with the reasoning in this appendix to Chron7?

Fomenko himself makes Velikovsky relevant to this thread, Fomenko even calls Velikovsky oneof the founding fathers of Fomenko's so-called 'new chronology'Naturally everyone would like to know how this claim can be justified.Allynh, can you justify it? Keep it simple and on topic, please!

Fomenko writes (Chron1:xxx)

"...Velikovsky...is considered to be the founder of the "critical school" in chronology... so his inclusion in the list of the founding fathers of the ***new chronology [sic] is rather arbitrary."....damned with faint praise, one might say...

Allynh, can you tell us what Fomenko means here? What possible link would Velikovsky have to Fomenko's 'new chronology'?From my careful reading of all of Velikovsky's books, I can assure everyone that they don't have to agree with me, or Velikovsky, or Fomenko, but Fomenko's claims and revisionist history is completely incompatible with Velikovsky's historical criticisms.A lot of people would love to know, can you point out a clear statement that would prove otherwise somewhere in Fomenko's books?

Then Fomenko goes on:"Velikovsky's works are much better known than the earlier and more detailed ones by N. A. Morozov..."Fomenko claims Morozov is 'more detailed' than Velikovsky... any details? In Fomenko's Chron1:xxx there's a link to some details to an appendix to Chron7.. very clever, do we have to buy Chron7 to find out what Fomenko is claiming in the first pages of his first book?

Morozov has conventional history from the seventh century to the twentieth, Fomenko claims that all history before 1000AD is forged, they cannot both be right.

Here is an example of an assertion: I'm ***not derailing this thread. Not. Not. Not.Statistically that is 400% more reliable than if I only said 'not' once...

sketch1946 wrote:From my careful reading of all of Velikovsky's books, I can assure everyone that they don't have to agree with me, or Velikovsky, or Fomenko, but Fomenko's claims and revisionist history is completely incompatible with Velikovsky's historical criticisms.

That's obvious. If Fomenko is correct then everyone else is wrong. Tough. Live with it.

And I think that I have finally identified the problem here. You seem to have missed the obvious fact once again, that:

- This thread is not about Velikovsky.

And that brings up the obvious insight I get from your comment. Notice the highlighted text.

sketch1946 wrote:From my careful reading of all of Velikovsky's books, I can assure everyone that they don't have to agree with me, or Velikovsky, or Fomenko, but Fomenko's claims and revisionist history is completely incompatible with Velikovsky's historical criticisms.

- No one here, on the Forum, needs your personal assurance about anything Velikovsky. We are all capable of reading his books ourselves.

I don't think that you understand where you are. This is the Thunderbolts Forum, Velikovsky is baked into the very structure of this Forum. You will find plenty of people here who have read and understood Velikovsky far better than you ever will, and we do not need a self appointed Velikovsky Cop running around attacking threads that personally offend him. Though, that does explain the many bizarre posts that I have seen you make on various Forum threads. I hate to tell you this, but we do not need you to enforce your Right-speaking or your Right-thinking on any of us. Thanks, but no thanks. HA!

And you obviously haven't noticed that this is the part of the Forum where:

New Insights and Mad Ideas

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

- What part of "New Insights and Mad Ideas" do you not understand, yet here you are, trying to crush our groove.

This thread is about Fomenko. Google Books has the first two books available online. Grey Cloud found great pdf copies of all four books that are available in english. So you do not have to spend a dime to read them. No one does, and now you know that. Sadly, we do not have access to Books 5 to 7 in english, so we can't answer your other Velikovsky question. But remember, this thread is about Fomenko.

Simply put:

If this thread upsets you so much, please consider not reading this thread.

Hi Allynh,You seem unconvinced that Fomenko's so-called 'new chronology' is a mad idea?People are waiting to see if there are really any 'gems' in the heap of assertions....Fomenko claims that Velikovsky is a 'founding father' of Fomenkian 'new chronology' You haven't told me or anyone else why Fomenko would say such a preposterous thing.

Can any sane and rational person explain how Fomenko could believe that Velikovsky, who wrote extensively of history in the two thousand years ***before Christ, can be made into a 'founding father' of Fomenko's scheme where history starts in the 12th century ***after Christ...

If you can't understand 'before' and 'after', then you shouldn't try to do chronology....

But hang on! You have told us that Velikovsky has ***no link to Fomenko's 'new chronology'!

None whatsoever? You are now saying that Fomenko is wrong when he claims Velikovsky is a founding father of his 'new chronology'?

I tried hard to use ***reason to help you see how wrong Fomenko is!.... but it doesn't seem to be working

allynh wrote: sketch1946 wrote: From my careful reading of all of Velikovsky's books, I can assure everyone that they don't have to agree with me, or Velikovsky, or Fomenko, but Fomenko's claims and revisionist history is completely incompatible with Velikovsky's historical criticisms.

That's obvious. If Fomenko is correct then everyone else is wrong. Tough. Live with it.

Sorry, that is not a valid conclusion, Allynh,In fact it's a good example of, in your own words, a 'counterfactual'... remember?"A counterfactual conditional, is a conditional containing an if-clause which is contrary to fact."It has **not been established yet in this discussion, by anyone, that Fomenko is correct.

Here is a link with serious arguments for and against Velikovsky's chronology, showing dates, all in the first and second millenium BC... ie starting approx three thousand years earlier than Fomenko claims history began, and ending approx one thousand years before Fomenko's history starts!

so clearly Fomenko is dishonest to claim Velikovsky has ***anything to do with Fomenko's 'new chronology',... you yourself have said that Velikovsky has nothing whatsoever to do with Fomenko's historical revisionism!http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/chron1.html

if Fomenko's chronology does prove to be just a crazy idea or eventually turn out to be a gem insight,then this is exactly the right forum to discuss whether he should be listened to......and if in the world's history there are forgeries, mistakes, bad science, distortions, political bias, foolish theories etc, **it doesn't logically follow that Fomenko is right.(everyone may be wrong!)

(That is not a counterfactual, since it includes a conditional statement about the future possibility that someone may come up with some convincing argument that Fomenko should be taken seriously, I for one, am still waiting.)

There is no sense to keep saying you have no comments, and telling everyone to read Fomenko's books, I've still to find something convincing, I need you to come up with some reason to believe Fomenko is not trying to distort history for some maybe clever but unknown purpose.logically, if Fomenko is wrong, then he's just wrong, it doesn't make everyone else right....There's no need for any bad-mouthing! if you can't find anything reasonable enough to convince everyone, and you just want to believe Fomenko anyway, that's fine by me...